pull down to refresh
Is this really true? Some people lose their shirt gambling.
If I spend $100 on blow, in expectation, I lose all $100.
If I spend $100 on gambling, in expectation, I lose about $10.
You gotta weight it by the per unit of entertainment per time though
What units are entertainment measured in?
FUs. Fun units, or Funits for short
as always, Mr. Undisc finds a good relative-to-what comparison that sort of flips the switch on the whole topic
I heard some version of this argument on EconTalk a long time ago and it instantly flipped my opinion about gambling as a pastime.
I still don't particularly enjoy gambling, but I don't think it's any more wasteful than leisure activities generally are.
Feels different somehow... Imagine the movies or a restaurant meal or even alcohol at a bar (if we all assume alcohol is bad and we'd be better off without it etc); there's a worker and an income on the other side of the tx... While in sports gambling there's a better also trying to have fun, no obvious benefit to society.
Anyway, I feel dirty even saying these things (subjective value, etc)
So, an automated restaurant would be less good because it required less labor?
This is sounding like some commie-ass nonsense.
It is, right. I take no responsibility for the commie shite I may or may be sputteringr on a random Friday evening
No, there's nothing socially beneficial about using more of people's time than is needed for a service.
Per dollar spent, gambling objectively is less costly than almost any other leisure activity.